Accountability report_final draft

Evaluation of accountability in water and
sanitation services worldwide
An analysis based on the data from the UN Water GLAAS report
2014
Author: Imenne Åhlén
Supervisor: Alejandro Jiménez
2016

Table of content
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3
1.1 GLAAS report 2014 ....................................................................................................................3
1.2 Accountability...........................................................................................................................4
1.3 Objective..................................................................................................................................6
2. Method..........................................................................................................................................6
3. Results...........................................................................................................................................9
3.1 Sanitation .................................................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Rural areas .......................................................................................................................14
3.1.2 Urban areas......................................................................................................................22
3.1.3 Schools and Health facilities...............................................................................................28
3.2 Drinking-water........................................................................................................................30
3.2.1 Rural areas .......................................................................................................................34
3.2.2 Urban areas......................................................................................................................41
3.2.3 Schools and Health Facilities..............................................................................................48
3.3 Sanitation and Drinking-water..................................................................................................49
3.4 Resultsfrom open-ended questions .........................................................................................52
4. Discussion ....................................................................................................................................54
4.1 Accountability in Sanitation .....................................................................................................57
General provisions.....................................................................................................................57
Rural and Urban sanitation ........................................................................................................58
4.2 Accountability in Drinking-water..............................................................................................60
General provisions.....................................................................................................................60
Rural and Urban drinking-water.................................................................................................61
4.3 Accountability for both Sanitation and Drinking-water...............................................................62
5. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................63
7. References ...................................................................................................................................64

1. Introduction
1.1 GLAAS report2014
GLAASreport 2014 (Global AnalysisandAssessmentof SanitationandDrinking-Water) isone of the UN
Water regularreports.Itis focusedonanalysingthe strengthsandchallengesinwater,sanitationand
hygiene withinandacrosscountries(WHO,2015). 94 countriesare part of the GLAAS report2014 survey
whichaimsto investigatethe waterandsanitationsectorbylookingatthe inputsandthe enabling
environmentrequiredtodevelopandtosustaingooddrinkingwaterandsanitationfacilitiesforall
people andespeciallyforthe mostdisadvantagepopulationgroups.The GLAAS report2014 analysisthe
drinking-waterandthe sanitationsectorfor bothrural and urbanareas.
The GLAAS report2014 showsthat the majorityof the countriesinvolvedinthe surveysupportpolitical
processestogainsafe and affordable drinking-waterandsanitation.The majorityof the surveyed
countriesapprove national policiesfordrinking-waterandsanitationandmanypoliciesare inplace.But
mostof the policiesandplans are partiallyimplemented.Assuchthere isaclear gap betweenaspiration
and realityformany countries.Forthe rural areas,the majorityof the surveyedcountriesansweredthat
theydo nothave universal coverage targetthatprovidessanitationanddrinkingwaterforpeople living
insuch areas.Further,the GLAAS reportshowed that6 out of 19 countriesthat actuallyhave universal
target coverage forthe rural areas,more than half of the rural populationdonothave accessto
sanitationfacilities. The GLAASreportalsoshow a low level of implementationof the drinking-waterand
sanitationsectorinbothhealthfacilitiesandschools.
The level of implementationtoimprove the drinking-waterandsanitationsectorisaccordingtothe
GLAASreport, moderatelysuccessful,where the majorityof the surveyedcountriesindicate thatspecific
measureshasbeentakenintheirnational plan.The resultsindicate thatanimplementationplanexist
for bothurban andrural areas.Onlya smallerpercentage of all the surveyedcountriesshow ahighlevel
of implementationinrural areas.Additionally,the GLAASreportshowsthatthe decision processesare
for the mostpart not evidence basedwhichisdue toa low monitoringcapacity,inconsistentor
fragmentedgatheringof dataandlimiteduse of informationmanagementsystemandanalysis.Onlya
small percentage of all the surveyedcountriesreporthavinganalysedanduseddataregardingdrinking-
waterand sanitation.Moreover,urbanareasare bettermonitoredthanrural areasand the affordability
and service qualityfordrinking-waterismore oftenmeasuredthan forsanitation. Atthe same time and
for manycountries,the coordinationof the drinking-waterandsanitationsectorisdistributedbetween
a numbers of differentministriesandnational institutions,whichhasimplicationsforsector
coordination,monitoringandfinancing.
Eventhoughfinancial resourceshave increasedforsome countries,insufficientnational financingisalso
a problemforthe majorityof the countriesas muchas the ratherpoor capacityof trackingfundingfor
the differentsub-sectors.The mainfinancial resource thatgoestodrinking-waterandsanitationcomes
fromtariffs,taxesandtransfersbutthe drinking-waterandsanitationsectorisalsoin a bigextent
fundedbyhouseholds.The GLAASreportalsoshowsthat33 of all surveyedcountriesfinance drinking-
waterand sanitationthroughgovernmental andexternal resources.Forthe majorityof the surveyed
countries,the externalresourceshave increasedwith 30% betweenthe yearsof 2010 and 2012. As

such,one of the mainfindingsof the GLAASreportis thatdevelopmentaidforbothdrinkingwaterand
sanitationsectorhasincreasedduringthe lastfive yearsandremainsamajor resource of financing.
Investmentsprogrammesforbothdrinking-waterandsanitationexistforthe majorityof the surveyed
countries.The programmes,whichcontainfinancingplansandbudgets, are toolstotrackthe financial
resourcesbetweendifferentpartiesinvolvedinthe drinking-waterandsanitationsector.Resultsfroma
breakdownof expenditure,show thaturbanareasgetmore financial resourcesthanrural areasand that
drinking-wateralsogetsmore financialresourcesthansanitation.
The GLAAS reportshowsclearlythatmore work isneededforboththe drinkingwaterandthe sanitation
sectorand especiallyforthe rural areas.Resultsfromthe reportalsoshow that many countrieslackof a
planfor drinkingwaterandsanitationinhealthfacilitiesandinschools,where schoolsare givenleast
attention.Furthermore,workhastobe done toenable the most disadvantage populationgroups to
access affordable services,althoughsomecountriesare alreadytryingtoreduce the inequalitiesby
takingfinancial measures.The reportalsoshowsthat more workhas to be done to strengthenthe
capacityfor each countryto settargets,formulate plans,undertakeimplementationandconduct
meaningful reviews.
1.2 Accountability
Accountabilitydescribesthe relationshipbetween differentstakeholders,suchasgovernment,service
providerandusers andtheirlevel of responsibility, answerability andenforceability.Inthe contextof
drinking-waterandsanitation,improvingthe level of accountabilitywillconducttoimproved
managementand betterdrinking-waterandsanitationservices(AccountabilityinWaSH;a reference
guide forprogramming,2015). Accountabilitycanhelpimprovethe qualityof relationshipsbetween
differentpartiesasithelpstoclarifythe commitmentsof actorsinvolved,create amore efficient
managementof resources,protectwaterresourcesandincrease control overthe actionsof publicand
private stakeholdersasmuchas ensuringminimumqualitystandardsof drinking-waterandsanitation.
Accountabilityisthereforeaboutchanging currentinstitutionalsystemstomake themmore responsible
inthe policymakingandimplementationandadditionallyfightthe institutionalinertia(Accountabilityin
WaSH; explainingthe concept,2015).
In thiscontext,accountabilitycanbe analysedhorizontallyandvertically.Horizontalaccountability
referstointernal control mechanismandoversight,suchasmonitoringandevaluationof services,and
the right to require explanationandinformation fromanotherstate actor.The horizontal accountability
ismeasuredbylookingathowlaw,rulesand regulationsare established. Vertical accountabilityis
referredtolinkingthe citizensdirectlytothe government,suchasthroughelection.Forthe sectorof
drinking-waterandsanitation,citizenparticipationinwatergovernance,improvementof CountryStatus
Overviews(CSO) politicalanalysesanddevelopmentof the capacityfor non-governmental organizations
(NGO) to betterunderstandthe watersectorare waysto increase the levelof accountability
(AccountabilityinWaSH;explainingthe concept,2015).
Accountabilitycanalsobe narroweddownintodifferentdimensions.Thismeansthataccountabilitycan
be analysedthrougha social,political,financial andadministrative pointof view.Goodsocial
accountabilitycanbe reachedbyholdinggovernmentsandotheractor’s actionsbythe civil society,

mediaandthe people.Political accountabilityreferstothe level of answerabilityfromgovernments
towardsthe citizenswhile administrative accountabilityisdefinedbyevaluatingandimprovingthe
administrativestructuresandensuring aprofessionallevel of the publicservants,consultantsand
technical support.Additionally,financial accountability referstothe truthfullyandaccurately
documentationof use of resourcesmade byinstitutionsandindividualsinvolvedinthe sector.
Three differentaccountabilitycomponentscanbe analysedwhenlookingatthe drinking-waterand
sanitationsector,suchas responsibility,answerabilityandenforceability(Table 1).Responsibilityinthe
contextof accountabilityisaboutdefiningthe rolesandenablingcooperationbetweendifferentactors
inservice delivery.Assuch,responsibilityispartlyreferred toclearlydefine the dutiesandperformance
standardsof doeswhoare in positionsof authoritiesinatransparentlyandobjective way. Furthermore,
responsibilityisalsoreferredtothe abilityof coordinatingdifferentpartiesinvolvedinthe sectorinan
organizational manner.Answerabilityisaboutinforming,consultingandincludingstakeholdersinall
stagesof service delivery.Therefore,answerabilityisreferredtothe accessibilityof timelyandaccurate
informationandthe possibilityof participationforthe bothservice usersandservice.Atlast,
enforceabilityisaboutmonitoringperformance,supportingcompliance andenforcement.Thismeans
that sanctionmechanismare puttedinplace,appropriate corrective andremedial actionsistakenwhen
required(AccountabilityinWaSH;a reference guideforprogramming,2015)(Table1).
Table 1. Accountability components and the objectives for each intervention level.
Accountability Component Subcomponent Evaluated element
I) Clarity inthe definitionof
rolesand responsibilities
Define a clear allocation of
responsibilitiesamong
stakeholders
Clarity
Putcoordination mechanismsin
place
Coordination
II) Informing,consultingand
engagingstakeholders
Improveaccessto information Information
Createspacesfor stakeholders
participation
Engagement
III) Overviewofperformance,
enforcementandcompliance
Strengthen externaland internal
controlmechanisms
Control
Supportorestablish the
regulatory function
Regulation

1.3 Objective
As the GLAASreportshowsthat many countrieshave deficienciesinthe drinking-waterandsanitation
sectorsuch as the lack of national plansandpolicies,low levelof implementationandmonitoring,poor
access of drinking-waterandsanitationforpoorpeople anddisadvantage people,muchmore workhas
to be done to enable agood drinking-waterandsanitationstatusforall countries.Since accountability
can be evaluatedbylookingatthe responsibility, answerability,andenforceabilityineach sector,
evaluatingthe accountabilityatdifferentlevelsandperspectivescanhelpusmove forwardinthe
developmentof reachinggoodandaccessible drinking-waterstatusandsanitationfacilities.
The aim of this reportis thereforeto evaluatethe level of accountability in the drinking-waterand
sanitation sectorglobally by looking at the three differentlevels of accountability:responsibility,
answerabilityand enforceability.
2. Method
To enable the evaluationof accountabilityof the drinking-waterandsanitationsector,the level of
responsibility,answerabilityandenforceabilityhasbeenstudied.Datafromthe GLAASreport2014 that
isrelatedtothe differentlevelsof interventionhasbeenused.Assuch,questionsfromthe GLAAS
surveyrelatedtothe three differentaccountabilitycomponentshasbeenusedforthe evaluation(Table
2).
Table 2. Questions related to the three levels of intervention in accountability.
Accountability
Component
Questions in GLAAS
I) Responsibility
A1. Policy/plan development and implementation: Do national policies and plans exist, and to what extent are
these implemented to ensure the provision of water and sanitation?
A2.Institutional roles and responsibilities and lead agencies: Please list ministries/ national institutions with
responsibilities in WASH and indicate the level of responsibility in each sector
A3.Coordination between actors: Does a formal mechanism exist to coordinate the work of different
organisations with responsibilities for WASH (health, education, environment, public works, etc.) to coordinate
activities?
A4. Coordinating with non-government organizations: To what extent do NGOs coordinate with government
institutions?
A5. Donor funding: Is there a coordination mechanism between bi-lateral/multi-lateral donors and government
and how are the donor funds channelled to the sector?
II) Answerability
B1. Dissemination of data: Is the performance (e.g. quality of service) of the formal service providers made
public and are the results of customer satisfaction information made public? (please check all that apply)
B2. Financial reporting: Are expenditures reports available that allow actual spending on WASH to be
compared with committed funding
B3. Participation procedures: Are there clearly defined procedures in laws or policies for participation by
service users (e.g. households) and communities in planning programs and what is the level of participation?
III) Enforceability
C1. Public reporting/complaints: Do members of the public served by formal service providers have an effective
mechanism to file complaints concerning the lack of, or unsatisfactory sanitation and drinking-water services?
C2. Service providers: Do serviceproviders report the results of their internal monitoringagainstrequired
servicestandards to the regulatory authority and does internal monitoringtrigger timely corrective action?

The resultsinthisreporthas beenanalysedfor 83 of the 94 countries surveyedin the GLAASreport.
Since accountabilityishardtoevaluate foreachcountry,the analyseshasbeendone regionally.The
regionalizationof the countrieshasbeendone accordingtothe reportof Progresson Sanitation and
Drinking Water- 2015 Updateand MDGAssessment byUNICEFand WorldHealthOrganisation inthe
yearof 2015. The table 3 showshowthe regionalizationof the 94 countrieshas beendone.
Table 3. Regions and the belonging countries that is surveyed in the GLAAS report 2014 (source: Progress onSanitation and
Drinking Water- 2015 Update and MDG Assessment;UNEP, 2015)
Some regionshave beenassembledtofurtherfacilitatethe evaluation. Thismeans thatthe regionof
SouthEast Asiaand SouthernAsiahasbeengroupedintoone region andthe regionof Middle Eastand
NorthAfricahas beengroupedintoone region.Anotherreasonforthisassemblingisdue tothe fact
that manyregionsare incomplete andtherefore difficulttoanalyse (Table3).
Two regionsthatare listedin table 3that isnot part of thisstudy since tomany countriesare missingto
make those regionscomplete.Therefore,the regionof Europe andOceaniaare not part of the
evaluationof accountability. Forthe regionof LatinAmericaandCaribbean,mostof the countriesthat
are missingare Caribbeancountries.Since,the regionof LatinAmericaandCaribbeanare generally
assembledintoone regionandthis reportfollowsthe regionalizationmade bythe reportof Progresson
Sanitation and Drinking Water- 2015 Updateand MDGAssessment byUNICEFand World Health
Organisation,the regionof Caribbeanwill be includedtogetherwithLatinAmericaeventhoughmany
Region Countries
Sub-Saharan Africa
37/51 countries covered (72 %)
Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso,Burundi,Cameroon,
Central African Republic,Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire,Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Eritrea,Ethiopia,Gabon, Gambia,Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,Kenya,Lesotho, Liberia,Madagascar,Mali,
Mauritania,Mozambique,Niger, Nigeria,United Republic of
Tanzania,Togo, Uganda, Sierra Leone, South Africa,South Sudan,
Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
SouthernAsia
All countries covered (100 %)
Afghanistan,Bangladesh, India3,Nepal,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,Iran
(IslamicRepublic of), Bhutan and Maldives.
South East Asia
8/11 countries covered (72%)
Indonesia,Lao People's Democratic Republic,Myanmar,
Philippines,Thailand,Timor-Leste, Viet Nam and Cambodia
Oceania
Cook Islands,Fiji,Vanuatu and Tonga
Caucasus and Central Asia
Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,Georgia, Tajikistan,Mongolia and
Azerbaijan
Europe
Lithuania,Republic of Moldova,Serbia, TFYR Macedonia,Ukraine,
Belarus and Estonia
Latin America and Caribbean
Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia,Dominican Republic2,El Salvador,
Honduras,Panama,Paraguay,Peru, Argentina, Bolivia
(Plurinational Stateof), Brazil,Chile,Costa Rica, Cuba and Haiti
Middle East
Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, West Bank and Gaza Strip
North Africa
Morocco and Tunisia

Caribbeancountriesare missing.Assuch,the resultsthatcanbe derivedfromthe regionof Latin
Americaand Caribbean will predominantly be aboutLatinAmericancountries.
The evaluationof accountabilityhasbeendone forrural andurban drinkingwaterandrural and urban
sanitationseparately. Some resultsare presentedforbothrural andurban drinking-waterandsanitation
and some resultsare representedfordrinking-waterandsanitationtogether. Furthermore,the results
concerningsanitation anddrinking-waterinschoolsandhealthfacilities have alsobeenpresented and
evaluated separately.

Figure 2. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 of donors involved in sanitation.
3. Results
3.1 Sanitation
Level of responsibility
Figure 1 showsthe percentage of countrieshavingone ormore thanone leading ministries/institutions
inthe sanitationsector. All regions,exceptforthe regionof CaucasusandCentral AsiaandSub-Saharan
Africashowthat the majorityof the surveyedcountries (over60 % of the countries) have more thanone
leadingministry/institution inthe sanitationsector. Forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,
almost30 % of the countries have notansweredthe questionand approximately15% of the countries
have no leadingministry/institution (Figure1).
Figure 1. Percentage of countries having one or more than one leading ministries/institutions in sanitation.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Southern Asia and South East Asia
North Africa and Middle East
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTRIES
Countires with one leading ministry/institution Countries with more than one leading minsitry/institution
No leading ministry/institution No answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Southern Asia and South East
Asia
1-10
11 +
No
answer

Figure 2 representthe percentage of countrieshavingbetween 1-10donorsor more than11 donors
involvedinsanitation foreachregion. Forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,Caucasusand
Central AsiaandSub-SaharanAfrica,the majorityof countriesreporthavingbetween1and 10 donors.
The percentage of countriesthatdo notgive an answerto the questionregardingthe total numberof
donorsinvolvedinsanitationisbetween15%,for the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,and 50 %
for the regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbean.However,the percentageof countriesthathave more
than 11 donorsishighestforthe regionof SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asiawitha percentage of 45 %
incomparisonto the regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbeanthathas lessthan15 % of the countries
reportinghavingmore than11 donors (Figure 2).
Figure 3 representsthe percentage of countrieshavingbetween1-10donorsor more than 11 donors in
sanitationallocatingthroughasignedagreement. Forthe regionof SouthernAsiaandSouthEastAsia
more than 50 % of the countrieshave notansweredandlessthan10 % of the countriesreporthaving
more than 11 donorsallocatedthroughsignedagreement.However,the percentageof countriesthat
reporthavingbetween1-10donorsallocatedthroughsignedagreementismore than50 % for the
regionsof Caucasusand Central Asia, SouthernAsiaandSouthEastAsiaand Sub-SaharanAfrica.As
such,onlythe regionof North Africaand Middle East and LatinAmericaandCaribbeanhave lessthan45
% of the countriesreportinghavingbetween1- 10 donorsallocatedthroughagreements (Figure3).
The percentage of the surveyed countries thatdonotgive an answertothe questionof the total
numberof donorsin sanitationthatuse directfundingthatdonot passthroughthe national budget is
highfor every region,with50% of the countries (Figure 4). Lessthan40 % of the countriesforall
regionsreporthavingbetween1-10donorswhere fundingdonotpassthrough national budget.Evena
smalleramountof all surveyedcountries (lessthan10 %) reportshavingmore than 11 donorsusing
directfunding(Figure 4).
Figure 3. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 donors in sanitation that allocates funding through a signed
agreement responsive to government defined priorities.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia
1-10
11+
No answer

Figure 5. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in sanitation using targeted budget support.
Figure 4. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in sanitation that do not pass through the national
budget.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
1-10
11+
0
No answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia
1-10
11+
0
No answer

Figure 6. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in sanitation using general budget support with
specific objectives or performance indicators.
The resultsfromfigure 5 show that more than 40 % of the countries forall regionshave notanswered
the questionregardingthe total numbers of donorsinvolvedinsanitationusingtargetedbudget
support.For all regions,except forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East, the percentage of
countriesreportinghavingbetween1-10donorsusingtargetedbudgetsupportislessthan20 %.As
such, the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle Easthas the highestpercentage of countriesreporting
havingbetween1-10donorsthroughtargetedbudgetfundingandapproximately15% of the countries
for the regionof Sub-SaharanAfricaandSouthernAsiaandSouth East Asialack of donorsusingtargeted
budgetsupport(Figure 5).
Figure 6 showssimilarresultsconcerningthe percentage of countriesforeachregionthathave not
answerthe questionregardingthe numberof donorsusinggeneral budgetsupportwithspecific
objectivesorperformance indicators.The majorityof the surveyedcountries (over50%) forall regions
have not answeredthe questionregarding the amountof donorsusinggeneral budgetsupport.Onlythe
regionof SouthernAsiaand SouthEast Asiaand Sub-SaharanAfricahave lessthan15 % of the countries
reportinghavingnodonorsof thistype or havingbetween1-10donors.Additionally,all regions have
lessthan30 % of the countriesreportinghavingmore than11 donors(Figure 6).
In additionto the reportednumbersof donorsinvolvedinsanitation,the numberof NGOsimplemented
inthe sectorrange between1to over100 NGOs.For the sanitationsector, around35 % of the countries
reporthavingbetween1and20 NGOsinvolvedinsanitation.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
1-10
11+
0
No answer

Figure 7. Percentage of countries that reports having communitybased service providers reporting results of internal monitoring
against required service standards in sanitation.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Not reported Reported but does not lead to corrective action
Reported and triggers corrective action No answer
Level of enforceability
Figure 7 and 8 representthe percentageof countrieswhere communitybased respectively informal
service providers reportthe resultsof internal monitoringagainstrequiredservice standardsin
sanitation.The resultsfromfigure 7show that over 50 % of the countriesforall regionsreport that
communitybasedservice providersdonotreportresultsfrominternal monitoringinsanitation.Onlya
fewcountries,withapercentage between10 % and 15 %, reportshavingcommunitybasedservice
providersreportingresultsfrominternalmonitoring thatalsotriggerscorrective action (Figure 7).
Figure 8. Percentage of countries having informal service providers that reports the results of their internal monitoring against
required service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions for sanitation.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia

Figure 9. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in rural sanitation.
Similartothe resultsinfigure 7,figure 8 also show thatmore than50 % of the countries forall regions
exceptforthe regionof Caucasusand Central Asia,reportthatinformal service providersdonotreport
resultsfrominternal monitoring insanitation. Between30% and 15 % of the countries forall region
exceptforthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East, reporthavingcommunitybasedservice providers
reportingresultsfrominternal monitoring butonlyasmall percentage between5and 15, reportsthat
the resultstriggerscorrective action. Forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle Eastthe resultsshows
that informal service providersdonotreportresultsfrominternal monitoringforall countriesthathave
answeredthe question (Figure8).
3.1.1 Rural areas
Figure 9 representthe levelof implementationof national policiesandplans forrural sanitation. The
regionof Caucasusand Central Asiaisthe onlyregionhaving50 % of the countriesreportingthat plans
and policiesare fullyimplementedwhile the remainingcountriesreporthavingthe policiesandplans
partiallyimplantedorapproved.Exceptforthe regionof LatinAmerica,the majorityof countriesforall
regionsreporthavingpoliciesandplan eitherfullyorpartiallyimplantedorjustapprovedbutnot
implemented (Figure9).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Plan being fully implemented, with funding, and regularly reviewed
Policy and plan costed and being partially implemented
Implementation plan developed based on approved policy
National policy formally approvedand gazetted through formal public
announcement
No national policy or under development

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Few (less than 25% of providers) Some (between 25-75% of providers)
Most (more than 75% of providers) No answer
Figure 10. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the performance reviews made public in rural sanitation.
Level of answerability
More than 50 % of the countriesforall regionsexceptforthe regionCaucasusandCentral Asia reports
havinglessthan25 % of the service providersmade public(Figure 10).Only the regionof Caucasusand
Central Asiahave over50 % of the countriesreportinghavingbetween25-75 % or more than 75 % of
the service providersmade public(Figure10).Figure 11 showssimilarresultsasfigure 10,where the 50
% of the countriesforall regionshave lessthan25 % of providersmade customersatisfactionpublic.
Figure 11. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction review made public in rural sanitation.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa

Unavailable
16 %
Only Governement
expenditure
16%
External funding from non
ODA and ODA
14%
Expenditure from
external and
national funding
51%
No answer
3%
Available
84%
Figure 12. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of expenditure
in rural sanitation.
The followingpie chartsrepresent the percentageof countriesforeachregionthathave available
expenditure reports andthe type of expenditure forsanitationinrural areas (Figure 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).
For the regionof Sub-SaharanAfrica84 % of the countriesreport havingexpenditure reportsavailable.
Of this84 % of the countries,54 % of the countriesreportsthatexpenditure comesfrombothexternal
and national fundingand16 % of the countriesreportshavinggovernmental expenditure only. Only14
% of the countriesreportshavingexpenditure fromexternal fundingfrombothOfficial Development
Assistance (ODA) andnon-ODA (Figure 12).
Figure 13. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia
and the type of expenditure in rural sanitation.
Unavailable
12%
Only Governement
expenditure
17%
ODA and ODA
0%
Expenditur
e from
external
and
national
funding
53%
No answer
18%
Available
88 %

Figure 15. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia and the type of
expenditure in rural sanitation.
Unavailable
12%
Only Governement
expenditure
25%
ODA and ODA
0%
Expenditure from external
and national funding
38%
No answer
25%
Available
88 %
Figure 14. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and the
type of expenditure in rural sanitation.
For the regionof SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia, 90 % of the countriesreporthavingexpenditure
reportsavailable.Of the 90 % of the countrieshavingavailableexpenditure reports,almosthalf of the
countriesreport expenditure fromexternal andnational funding.Of the remainingcountries,19% of
the countries reportshavinggovernmentexpenditure onlyand19% have not answeredthe type of
expenditure (Figure 13).
The regionof Latin AmericaandCaribbean showssimilarresults asthe regionof SouthernAsiaand
SouthEast Asiaregardingthe availabilityof expenditurereports.Of the 88 % of the countriesthathave
expenditure reportsavailable,38% of the countriesreport havingexpenditure fromexternal and
national funding.Of the remainingcountries,25% reportshavinggovernmentexpenditure onlyand25
% have notansweredthe type of expenditure (Figure 14).
Unavailable
17%
Only Governement
expenditure
33%
ODA and ODA
17%
Expenditure from
external and national
funding
33%
No answer
0%
Available
83 %

The resultsfromthe regionof Caucasus andCentral Asiaand NorthAfricaand Middle East,are similaras
perviousresultsforthe regionof Sub-SaharanAfrica,SouthernAsiaand SouthEastAsiaand Latin
Americaand Caribbean.Forthe regionof Caucasus and Central Asia,31 % of the 77 % of the countries
that reporthavingexpenditure reportsavailable,have expenditure fromexternal andnational funding.
23 % of the countriesreport havinggovernmentexpenditure onlyand8% of the countrieshave
expenditure fromexternal fundingfrombothODA and nonODA (Figure 15).
For the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,57% of 86 % of the countriesreportinghaving
expenditure reportsavailable,reportshavingexpenditure frombothexternal andnational funding.The
remaining29 % of the countries reporthavinggovernmentexpenditureonly.
For all regions,the amountof countriesreportinghavingexpenditure reportsavailable isrelativelyhigh.
Further,the majorityof these countriesreport havingexpenditure frombothexternal andnational
fundinganda relativelylarge partof the remainingcountriesreportshavinggovernmentexpenditure
only.The numberof countriesthathave not giventhe type of expenditureisrelativelyhigh forthe
regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbean,withapercentage of 25%.
Figure 16. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and
the type of expenditure in rural sanitation.
The percentage of countriesthathave clearlydefinedproceduresinlawsorpoliciesforparticipationby
service usersandcommunitiesinplanningprogramsishighforeveryregion(Figure 17).The regionthat
has the highestpercentage of countriesthatdonot have clearlydefinedproceduresinlaw orpolicyin
planningprogramsis Caucasusand Central Asia.Few countries forthe regionof LatinAmericaand
Caribbean,Sub-SaharanAfricaandSouthernAsiaand SouthEastAsiahave not answeredthe question
(figure 17).
Unavailable
14%
Only Governement
expenditure
29%
External funding from
non ODA and ODA
0%
Expenditure
from
external and
national
funding
57%
No answer
0%
Available
86 %

Figure 18. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in rural sanitation.
Figure 17. Percentage of countries that have defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities in
planning programs in rural sanitation.
Over40% of the countriesforthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,Caucasusand Central Asiaand
Latin AmericaandCaribbeanreporthavinglow level of particiaptionof the service urserinrural
sanitation (Figure 18).Forthe regionsof Sub-SaharanAfricaandSouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia,over
80 % of the countriesreporthavingmoderate orhighlevelof participation (Figure18).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Yes
No
No Answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Low
Moderate
High
No Answer

Figure 19. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in rural sanitation exists for few, some or most of the population served
in rural sanitation.
%
Figure 19 represents the percentage of countries where effectivecomplaintmechanisminrural
sanitation existforfew,some ormostof the populationserved. Forthe regionof NorthAfricaand
Middle East, over40 % of the countriesreportsthatcomplaintmechanismexistforless than25 % of the
populationserved.Almosthalf of the countries forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East reports
that effectivecomplaintmechanism existforsome ormostof the populationserved, wherethe majority
of those countrieshave effective complaintmechanism forsome of the populationserved.Forthe
remainingregions,the amountof countries where effective complaintmechanismexistfora few of the
populationserved isrelativelylow,withlessthan25 % of the countries.Forthe region of Caucasus and
Central Asia,the amountof countries where effective complaintmechanism existformostof the
populationservedis highestwithapercentage of over35 % togetherwiththe regionof LatinAmerica
and Caribbean.The amountof countriesthatdo notknow how much of the populationservedcan
access to effective mechanismcomplaints isapproximatelybetween30-40 % of the countriesforthe
regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbean,SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asiaand Sub-SaharanAfrica
(Figure 19).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Few (less than 25% population served) Some (between. 25-50% population served)
Most (more than 50% population served) Unknown
No answer

Figure 20. Percentage of countries that report the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the
regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in rural sanitation.
The amount of countriesthatdo not have anyreportingof resultsfrominternal monitoringis highfor
the regionof North Africaand Middle East and Caucasusand Central Asiawithapercentage of 50 %
(Figure 20).Althoughthe same patternsistrue for the remainingregions,the percentageof countries
that have reportedresultsfrominternal monitoringandwhere ithastriggered andnottriggered a
corrective actionis between40% and 50 % (Figure 20).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia

3.1.2 Urban areas
Figure 21. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in urban sanitation.
The level of implementationof the national policiesandplansforeachregioncanbe deducedfrom
figure 21. The regionwhere mostcountrieshave policiesandplanscostedandpartially implemented
are NorthAfricaand Middle Eastand Caucasusand Central Asia, withover40 % of the countriesand
Sub-SaharanAfricawithover60 % of the countries.The regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East and
Caucasusand Central Asiahasthe highestamountof countrieswhere policiesandplansare fully
implementedwithfundingandregularlyreviewedwhile Sub-SaharanAfricahasthe lowestamountof
countrieswithfullyimplementedplansandpolicies (Figure 21).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
National policy formally approvedand gazetted through formal public announcement
No answer

Figure 22 and23 representsthe percentage of countriesthathave few,some ormostperformance
reviewsrespectivelycustomersatisfactionreviewsof urbanformal service providersmade publicfor
sanitation.The resultsfromfigure 22showsthat manycountries forthe regionof NorthAfricaand
Middle Eastand Caucasus and Central Asiahave more than 75 % of the countrieswhere some ormost
of the urbanformal service providerswhere made publicinsanitation. Over50 % of the countriesfor
the regionof Sub-SaharanAfricaand SouthernAsiaand SouthEast Asiareporthavinglessthan25% of
the urban formal service providersmade publicinsanitation(Figure 22).
Figure 22. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the performance reviews made public in urban sanitation.
Figure 23. Percentage of countries having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction review made public in urban
sanitation.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa

The resultsfromfigure 23 showsthat the majorityof countries forall regionsexceptforthe regionof
Latin AmericaandCaribbean have lessthan25 % of the customersatisfactionreviewsof the urban
formal service providerswhere made publicin urbansanitation. However,the regionof Caucasusand
Central Asiahave approximately40% of the countiesreporting more than75% of the customer
satisfactionreviewsof the urbanformal service providerswhere made publicinsanitation(Figure23).
Figure 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 representsthe percentageof countriesforeachregionthathave available
expenditure reportsandthe type of expenditure forsanitationin urbanareas.For all regions,the
availabilityof expenditurereport ishighand for the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,all countries
reporthavingexpenditure reportavailable.Additionally,the majorityof countries,forall regionsthat
have expenditure reportsavailable,reporthavingexpenditurefromexternal andnational funding.
Unavailbale
14 %
Only Governement
expenditure
14%
ODA and ODA
8%
Expenditure
from external
and national
funding
59%
No answer
5%
Available
86 %
Unavailable
6 %
Only Governement
expenditure
12%
non ODA and ODA
6%
Expenditure
from external
and national
funding
53%
No answer
23%
Availbale
94 %
Figure 24. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of expenditure in
urban sanitation.
Figure 25. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and the type of
expenditure in urban sanitation.

For the regionof Latin Americaand Caribbean,25% of 88 % of the countriesthathave expenditure
report,have not answeredthe type of expenditure and25 % reportshavinggovernmentexpenditure
only.Assuch,a relativelysmall amountof countriesreporthavingexpenditure frombothexternaland
national funding(Figure 26).Similarresultscanbe seenforthe regionof Caucasusand Central Asia
(Figure 27).
Unavailable
12%
Only Governement
expenditure
25%
External funding from non ODA
and ODA
0%
Expenditure
from external
and national
funding
38%
No answer
25%
Available
88 %
Figure 26. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and the type of
Unavailable
17%
Only
Governement
expenditure
33%
External funding from non ODA
and ODA
0%
Expenditure
from
external and
national
funding
50%
No answer
0%
Available
83 %

For the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East the majorityof countries,withapercentage of 71 %,
reporthavingexpenditure fromexternalandnational fundingand29 % of the countriesreporthaving
governmentexpenditure only(Figure 28).
Figure 29 represent the percentageof countriesthathave clearlydefinedlaw andpoliciesfor
participationbyservice usersandcommunitiesinplanningprogramsinurbansanitation. Over60 % of
the countriesforall regionsreporthavinga clearlydefinedlaw andpolicies inurbansanitation.
Between40 %and 70 % of the countries forall regions, reporthavingmoderate level of participationof
the servicesinurbansanitation (Figure 30).Onlythe regionsof NorthAfricaandMiddle Eastand Latin
AmericaandCaribbeanlackof highlevel of participationof the service usersinurbansanitation.Forall
regions,exceptforthe regionof Caucasusand Central Asia,the percentage of countriesthathave low
level of participationof service usersinurbansanitationis around30 % (Figure 30).
Unavailable
0%
Only Governement
expenditure
29%
ODA and ODA
0%
71%
No answer
0%Available
100%
Figure 28. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and the type of
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Yes
No
No Answer
Figure 29. Percentage of countries that have defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities in planning
programs in urban sanitation.

Figure 31. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanisms in urban sanitation exist for few, some or most of the
population served in urban sanitation.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
No answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Low
Moderate
High
No Answer
Figure 30. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in urban sanitation.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
The resultsfromfigure 31 showsthat the majorityof countries forall regionsexceptforthe regionof
Sub-SaharanAfricaandSouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia have effective complaintmechanismformost
of the populationserved,withapercentage of 60 % to 70 %.Almost30 % of the countries forthe region
of Sub-SaharanAfricareporthavinglackof knowledgewhenitcomestoaccessof effective complaint
mechanismforpopulationserved (Figure 31).
Figure 32. Percentage of countries that reports the results of their internal monitoring against required service standards to the
regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in urban sanitation.
Over35 % of the countriesforall regions exceptforthe regionof LatinAmericaandCaribbeandonot
reportresultsfrominternal monitoringinurbansanitation.OnlyLatinAmericaandCaribbeanaswell as
NorthAfricaand Middle East have around60 % of the countries where internal monitoringinurban
sanitation isreportedandwhere italsotriggerscorrective actions (Figure 32).
3.1.3 Schools and Health facilities
The majorityof countries forthe regionof North Africaand Middle East reportfullyimplemented
policiesandplans of sanitationinschools.The regionof LatinAmericaandCaribbeanhasthe highest
percentage of countriesreportinglackof national policiesforsanitationinschoolsorunder
development,with40% of the countriesthatdo nothave no policiesandplansorunderdevelopment
(Figure 33).
Similarresultsare shownforthe level of implementationof policiesandplanof sanitationforhealth
facilities(Figure34). The regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East togetherwiththe regionof Caucasus
and Central Asiashowa highpercentage of countrieswithfullyimplementedplansandpoliciesfor
sanitationinhealthfacilities. Atthe same time,the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle Eastalsoshowsa
relativelyhighpercentageof countriesthatlackof national policiesorpoliciesunderdevelopment. The
regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbeanalsoshowsarelativelyhighpercentageof countriesthatlackof
national policiesorpoliciesunderdevelopmentforsanitationhealthfacilities(Figure34).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTRIESPlan being fully implemented, with funding, and regularly reviewed
No answer
Figure 33. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in sanitation in schools.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
National policy formally approvedand gazetted through formal public
announcement
No answer
Figure 34. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in sanitation in health facilities.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Countires with one leading ministry/institution Countries with more than one leading minsitry/institution
No leading ministry/institution No answer
Figure 35. Percentage of countries having one or more than one leading ministries/institutions in drinking-water.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
1-10
11 +
0
No answer
Figure 36. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 of donors involved in drinking-water.
3.2 Drinking-water
For the sectorof drinkingwater,the percentage of countrieswithmore thanone leading
ministry/institutionisover60 % forthe regionof SouthernAsiaandSouth East AsiaandSub-Saharan
Africa.For the regionof LatinAmericaand CaribbeanandCaucasusand Central Asia,the majorityof
countriesreporthavingone leadingministry/institutionforthe drinking-watersector.Onlythe regionof
NorthAfricaand Middle East,have countriesreportinghavingnoleadingministry/institution(Figure
35).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
1-10
11 +
0
No answer
Figure 36 representthe percentageof countrieshavingbetween1-10donorsor more than 11 donorsin
the sector of drinking-water.Onlyforthe regionof Caucasusand Central Asia, over60 % of the
countriesreporthavingbetween1-10donorsin drinking-waterandover50 % of the countriesforthe
regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East reporthavingmore than11 donors (Figure 36).
Figure 37. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors or more than 11 donors in drinking-water that allocates funding
through a signed agreement responsive to government defined priorities.
For the regionof Caucasusand Central Asiaand Sub-SaharaAfrica,the majorityof countries,witha
percentage of over50% reporthavingbetween1-10donorsthat allocatesfundingthroughasigned
agreementresponsivetogovernmentdefinedpriorities(Figure37). For the regionof NorthAfricaand
Middle East,around40 % of the countriesreporthavingmore than11 donorsthat allocatesfunding
througha signedagreement.The percentageof countriesthathave notansweredthe questionis
relativelyhighforeveryregion,withpercentage ranging between15% to 60 % (Figure 37).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
1-10
11 +
No answer
Figure 38. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in drinking-water that do not pass through
the national budget.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
1-10
11 +
0
No answer
Regardingthe amountof donorsthat do not passthroughthe national budget,the majorityof countries
for all regionshave notanswered,withapercentage over50%. Onlythe regionof Sub-SaharanAfrica
show that approximately40% of the countriesreport havingbetween1-10donorsthat do not pass
throughnational budget(Figure 38). Similarresultscanbe deducedregardingthe numberof donors
usingtargetedbudgetsupportasthe numberof donorsthat do not passthroughnational budget.Over
60 % of the countriesgive noanswertothe numberof donors in drinking-waterusingtargetedbudget
supportand between5%and 15 % of the countriesforthe regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbean,
SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asiaand Sub-SaharanAfricahave nodonorsusingtargetedbudget
support(Figure 39).
Figure 39. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in drinking-water using targeted
budget support.
Figure 40. Percentage of countries having between 1-10 donors, more than 11 or no donors in drinking-water using general
budget support with specific objectives or performance indicators.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
1-10
11 +
0
No answer

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
PERCENTGAE OF COUNTRIES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Figure 42. Percentage of countries where informal service providers that reports the results of their internal monitoring against required
service standards to the regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions for drinking-water.
Figure 40 alsoshowsimilarresultsasfigure 38 and39 regardingthe total numberof donorsusing
general supportwithspecificobjectivesorperformance indicators.The majorityof countriesfor all
regionshave notansweredthe questionandonlyarelativelysmall percentage of countriesreport
havingbetween1-10donorsthat use general budgetsupportwithspecificobjectivesorperformance
indicators(Figure 40).
Figure 41. Percentage of countries that reports having community based service providers reporting results of internal monitoring against
required service standards in drinking-water.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTRIESPlan being fully implemented, with funding, and regularly reviewed
No answer
Figure 43. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in rural areas in rural drinking-water.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTIRES
Figure 44. Percentage of countries, for each region, having few, some or most of the performance reviews in rural drinking water made
public.
Figure 41 and42 representthe percentageof countrieswhere communitybasedrespectivelyinformal
service providersreportsthe resultsof internalmonitoringagainstrequiredservice standardsin
sanitation.The resultsthatcandeducedfrombothfigure 41 and 42 is that over40 % of the countriesfor
all regions,exceptforCaucasusandCentral Asia, reportthatcommunitybasedprovidersandservice
providerdonotreport resultsfrominternal monitoringagainstrequiredservice standards. Over20% of
the countriesforthe all regionsexceptforNorthAfricaandMiddle East have notansweredthe question
regardingthe reportingof internal monitoringfrominformal service providers(Figure 42).
3.2.1 Rural areas
Approximately40% and more of the countriesforthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East, Caucasus
and Central AsiaandSouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia reporthavingplanand policiesfully
implemented. Forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East and Sub-SaharanAfrica, over50 % of
countriesreporthavingpolicyandplancostedandpartiallyimplemented(Figure 43).

Figure 45. Percentage of countries, for each region, having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction reviews in rural
drinking water made public.
Figure 44 and45 representthe percentageof countrieshavingfew,some ormostof the performance
reviewsrespectivelythe customersatisfactionreviewsmade public.Resultfromfigure 44showsthat
over50% of the countriesforthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,LatinAmericaand Caribbean
and Sub-SaharanAfricahave fewperformancereviewsof the rural formal service providersmade
public.However,the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East hasthe highestamountof countrieswhere
mostof the performance reviewsof the rural formal service providersismade public (Figure 44).
The resultsfromfigure 45 also showsthatthe majorityof countriesforthe regionof North Africaand
Middle East,Latin Americaand CaribbeanandSub-SaharanAfricahave few customersatisfaction
reviewsof the rural formal service providersmade public.The amountof countriesthathave not
answeredthe questionisfor the regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbean relatively high,witha
percentage of 30 % (Figure 45).
Figure 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 representthe percentage of countriesforeachregionthathas expenditure
reportavailable andthe type expenditure forrural drinking-water.The majorityof countriesforall
regionsexceptforthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,where all surveyedcountrieshave
expenditure reportsavailable,show thatexpenditurereportsare available.Commontoall regions is
that the majorityof the countriesthathave expenditure reportsavailable,have expenditure from
external andnational funding.Additionally, over30 % of the countriesforall regions,reporthaving
governmentexpenditure only(Figure 46,47, 48, 49 and50).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa

Unavailable
11%
Only Governement
expenditure
11%
ODA and ODA
5%
Expenditure
from
external and
national
funding
62%
No answer
11%
Availbale
89 %
Figure 46. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of expenditure
in rural drinking-water.
Unavailable
18%
Only
Governement
expenditure
29%
ODA and ODA
6%
Expenditure
from
external
and
national
funding
29%
No answer
18%
Availbale
82 %
Figure 47. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia and the
type of expenditure in rural drinking-water.

Unavailable
12%
Only
Governement
expenditure
31%
ODA and ODA
6%
38%
No answer
13%
Availbale
88 %
Figure 48. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and the type of
expenditure in rural drinking-water.
Unavailable
17%
Only Governement
expenditure
33%
ODA and ODA
0%
50%
No answer
0%
Available
83 %
expenditure in rural drinking-water.

Figure 50. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports is available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and the
type of expenditure in rural drinking-water.
Figure 51 and52 representthe percentageof countrieshavingclearlydefinedproceduresinlaw and
policyforparticipationbyservice usersandthe extentof participationof serviceusersinrural drinking-
water.
Unavailable
0%
Only
Governement
expenditure
29%
non ODA and ODA
0%
Expenditure
from
external
and
national
funding
71%
No answer
0%
Availbale
100 %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Yes
No
No Answer
Figure 51. Percentage of countries that have defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities
in planning programs in rural drinking-water.

Figure 52. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in rural drinking-
water.
The resultsthat can deducedfromfigure 51 isthat over75% of the countriesforall regionshave defined
proceduresinlawandpolicyforparticipationby service usersandcommunitiesinplanningprogramsin
rural drinking-water,where NorthAfricaandMiddle Easthas 100 % of the countriesreportingclearly
definedproceduresinlawandpolicy.
Regardingthe level of participationof the servicesusersin rural drinking-water,over70 % of the
countriesforall region reporthavinga moderate orhighparticipationlevel (Figure 52).Onlythe region
of SouthernAsiaand SouthEast Asiahave approximately30% of the countriesreportinghavingahigh
level of participationof the service usersinrural drinking-water(Figure 52).
Figure 53 representthe percentageof countrieswhere effectivecomplaintmechanisminrural drinking
waterexistforfew,some ormostof the populationserved. Around70% of the countries of North
Africaand Middle Eastreporthavingaccess of complaintmechanismfor25% to 50 % and more than 50
% of populationserved. 50 %of the countries forthe regionof Caucasus andCentral Asiareporthaving
access to complaintmechanismformostof the populationserved. Forthe regionof LatinAmericaand
Caribbean andSub-SaharanAfricaaround30 % of countriesreportnotknowingthe amountof
populationserved thathave accessto effective complaintmechanism(Figure 53).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Low
Moderate
High
No Answer

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
No answer
Figure 53. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in rural drinking-water exist for few, some or most of
the population served.
Figure 54 representthe percentageof countriesthatreportsthe resultsof internal monitoringagainst
service standardstothe regulatoryauthoritiesandif the reportingtriggertocorrective action inrural
drinking-water.Between30%and 50 % of the countriesforall regionsreportthe resultsandthe
reportingtriggersacorrective action.Onlythe regionof SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia hasmore
than 40 % of the countries notreportinginternal monitoring(Figure 54).
regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in rural drinking-water.

3.2.2 Urban areas
The level of implementation of national policiesandplaninurbandrinking-waterisrepresentedin
figure 55. For the regionof North Africaand Middle East and Sub-SaharanAfrica, around50 % of the
countriesreporthavingpolicy andplanpartiallyimplemented.The percentage of countriesthathave
national policiesandplansfullyimplementedis over40 % forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East
and Caucasusand Central Asia.Onlythe regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbean, SouthernAsiaand
SouthEast Asiaand Sub-SaharanAfricahave between 5% to 10 % of the countriesreportingthattheydo
not have a national policyorthat itis underdevelopment(Figure 55).
Figure 56 and57 representthe percentageof countrieshavingfew,some ormostof the performance
reviewsrespectivelythe customersatisfactionreviewsmade public.The resultsfromfigure56,shows
that over70 % of the countries forthe regionof North Africaand Middle Eastand Caucasusand Central
Asiahave some or mostof the providersof performance reviewswere made public.Onlythe regionof
SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia and Sub-SaharanAfricashow thataround 50 % of the countrieshave
lessthan25% of providersforthe performance reviewsmade public(Figure56).
Resultsfromfigure 57 showthat lessthan 50 % of the countries forthe regionof SouthernAsiaand
SouthEast Asiaand Latin AmericaandCaribbean have lessthan25% of providers of satisfactionreviews
were made public. Forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle Eastand Sub-SaharanAfrica,around50 %
of the countrieshave lessthan25% of providersof satisfactionreviewswere made public. Onlythe
regionof Caucasusand Central Asiashow thataround 80 % of the countries have some ormost of
providersof satisfactionreviewswere made public(Figure 57).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
No answer
Figure 55. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans in urban drinking-water.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Figure 56. Percentage of countries, for each region, having few, some or most of the performance reviews for rural drinking water made
public.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Figure 57. Percentage of countries, for each region, having few, some or most of the customer satisfaction reviews for urban
drinking water made public.
Figure 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 representthe percentage of countriesthathave expenditure reports
available andthe type of expenditure. The resultsfrom figure58,59, 60, 61 and 62 are similartothe
resultsfromfigure 46, 47, 48, 49 and50, whichshowsthe expenditure fordrinking waterinrural areas.
Thismeansthat a majorityof countriesforall regionshave expenditure reportsavailable. Onlythe
regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East isthe expenditure reportsavailable forall surveyedcountries
(Figure 62).The type of expenditure thatthe majorityof countrieshave isfromexternalandnational
funding.Manycountries,forall regions,reporthavinggovernmentexpenditureonly.

Unvailable
13%
Only Governement
expenditure
14%
ODA and ODA
3%
Expenditure
from external
and national
funding
62%
No answer
8%
Availbale
87 %
Figure 58. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa and the type of
expenditure in urban drinking-water.
Figure 59. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia
and the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water.
For the regionof SouthernAsiaandSouth East Asia,25 % of the countrieshave notansweredwhattype
of expendituretheyhave andonly15%report havinggovernmentexpenditureonly(Figure 59).
Unvailable
6%
Only Governement
expenditure
12%
ODA and ODA
6%
Expenditure from
external and
national funding
53%
No answer
23%
Available
94 %

Figure 60. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of Latin America and Caribbean and
the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water.
Unvailable
12%
Only Governement
expenditure
25%
ODA and ODA
0%
Expenditure
from
external and
national
funding…
No answer
25%
Available
88 %
Unvailable
17%
Only Governement
expenditure
33%
ODA and ODA
0%
Expenditure
from external
and national
funding
50%
No answer
0%
Available
83%
expenditure in urban drinking-water.

Figure 62. Percentage of countries where expenditure reports are available for the region of North Africa and Middle East and
the type of expenditure in urban drinking-water
Figure 63 and64 representthe percentageof countries,foreachregion,thathave cleardefined
procedure forlawand policyforparticipationbyservice usersandcommunitiesandthe extentof
participationinurbandrinking-water.
Unvailable
0%
Only Governement
expenditure
29%
ODA and ODA
0%
71% No answer
0%
Available
100 %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Yes
No
No Answer
Figure 63. Percentage of countries that have defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities in
planning programs in urban drinking-water.

Figure 64. Percentage of countries that have low, moderate or high level of participation of the service users in urban drinking-
water.
The resultsthat can be deducedfromfigure 63 isthat all countriesforthe regionof North Africaand
Middle Easthave clear definedproceduresinlaw andpoliciesbyservice usersandcommunitiesin
planningprogramsinurbandrinking-water.The majorityof the countriesforthe remainingregionsalso
showcleardefinedproceduresinlawandpolicyinplanningprograminurbandrinking-water(Figure
63).
Figure 64 showsthatthe majorityof countries forthe regionof NorthAfricaandMiddle East and
Caucasusand Central Asiahave moderate level of participationof the service usersinurbandrinking-
water.Additionally,the regionsof NorthAfricaandMiddle Eastand LatinAmericaand Caribbeanhave
approximately40 %of the countries reportinglow participationlevel of the service usersinurban
drinking-water(Figure 64).
Figure 65 representthe percentageof countries,foreachregion,the amountof populationservedthat
have access toeffective complaintmechanism. Over50 % of the countriesforall regionsreportthat
more than 50 % of the populationservedhave accesstoeffective complaintmechanism. Onlythe region
of NorthAfricaand Middle Eastand SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia have lessthan30 % of the
countrieswere lessthan25 % of the populationservedhave accesstoeffective complaintmechanism
(Figure 65).
Figure 66, showthat over50 % of the countriesforthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East,Caucasus
and Central Asia,LatinAmericaand Caribbean andsub-SaharanAfricareportsresultsfrominternal
monitoringandwhere the reportingtriggerscorrective actions.Approximately20 % of the countriesfor
the regionof SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia and Sub-SaharanAfricadonot reportresultsfrom
internal monitoringinurbandrinkingwater(Figure66).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Low
Moderate
High
No Answer

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
No answer
regulatory authorities and if the internal monitoring triggers corrective actions in urban drinking-water.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Figure 65. Percentage of countries where effective complaint mechanism in urban drinking-water exist for few, some or most of the
population served

3.2.3 Schools and Health Facilities
The level of implementationfordrinking-waterinschoolsvaries betweenthe regions(Figure 67). Less
than 30 % of the countriesforall regionshave fullyimplementednational policiesinsanitationfor
schools. Around 30% of the countries forthe regionof NorthAfricaand Middle Eastand LatinAmerica
and Caribbeanlackof national policies ornational policiesare underdevelopment.However, 40 % of
the countriesforthe regionof North Africa andMiddle East butalso forthe regionof Sub-SaharanAfrica
have national policiespartiallyimplemented (Figure67).
The level of implementationof drinking-waterinhealthfacilitiesisgenerallyhighforall regions except
for LatinAmericaandCaribbean,witharound60 % of the countriesreportinghavingnationalpolicies
fullyorpartiallyimplementedorapproved (Figure 68). The regionof NorthAfricaand Middle Easthas
the highestpercentage (around55%) of countriesreportinghavingfullyimplementednationalpolicies.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
PERCENTAGE FO COUNTRIES
No answer
Figure 67. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans for drinking-water in schools

Figure 68. Level of implementation of the national policies and plans for drinking-water in health facilities
3.3 Sanitation and Drinking-water
The resultspresentedinthissection are aboutcoordinationbetweenactorsforboth drinking-waterand
sanitation.
Figure 69. Percentage of countries where formal mechanism exists to coordinated the work of different organizations with
responsibilities in drinking-water and sanitation.
The resultsfromfigure 69 showthat all the surveyedcountriesforthe regionof Caucasusand Central
Asiahave a mechanismtocoordinate the workof differentorganisationsinvolvedindrinking-waterand
sanitation.Furthermore,the majorityof countries forthe remainingregionalsoshow thata mechanism
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
No answer
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sub-Saharan Africa
Yes Developing No

to coordinate differentorganisationexist.However,arelativelylarge percentageof the countries forthe
regionof NorthAfricaand Middle East reporthavingnomechanismof coordinationfordifferent
organisations(Figure69).
The followingfigures70,71, 72, 73 and74, show the coordinationprocessforeachregionsforthe
countriesthathave reportedanexistentcoordinationmechanismfordifferentorganisationsinvolvedin
drinking-waterandsanitation.
Figure 70. Percentage of countries for the region of Sub-Saharan Africa reporting occurrence of different type of coordination
processes.
Figure 71. Percentage of countries for the region of Southern Asia and South East Asia reporting occurrence of different type of
coordination processes.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The coordination process include all ministries and government
agencies that directly or indirectly influence sesrvice delivery
The coordinations process include non-government
stakeholders
The coordination process apply evidence-based decision-
making, including consideration of agreed indicators
The coordination process base its work on an agreed sectoral
framework or national plan
The coordination process documented
Yes No No answer
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
stakeholders
Yes No No answer

Figure 72. Percentage of countries for the region of Latin America and Caribbean reporting occurrence of different type of
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
stakeholders
Yes No No answer
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The coordination process include all ministries and government agencies
that directly or indirectly influencesesrvice delivery
The coordinations process include non-government stakeholders
The coordination process apply evidence-based decision-making, including
consideration of agreed indicators
The coordination process base its work on an agreed sectoral framework or
national plan
PERCENTAGE OF COUNTIRES
Yes No No answer
Figure 73. Percentage of countries for the region of Caucasus and Central Asia reporting occurrence of different type of coordination
processes.

Figure 74. Percentage of countries for the region of North Africa/Middle East reporting occurrence of different type of
The majorityof countriesforthe regionof Sub-SaharanAfrica, SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia,
Caucasusand Central AsiaandNorth Africaand Middle East reporthavingincludedall ministriesand
governmentagenciesandnon-governmentalstakeholders,applyingevidencebaseddecisionmaking,
basedthe workon agreed sectorial frameworkanddocumentthe coordinationprocess(Figure 70,71,
73 and 74). For the regionof Latin AmericaandCaribbeanshow thatmany countrieshave notspecified
the type of coordinatedprocessesandsome countrieshave notincludednon-governmental
stakeholders,evidence baseddecisionmaking,documentedthe coordinationprocessorbasedthe work
on agreed sectorial frameworks(Figure 72).
3.4 Resultsfromopen-ended questions
In thissection, resultsdeducedfromopen-endedanswers fromquestion A1,C1,C2 andB2 are
presentedregionallyforbothdrinkingwaterandsanitation.
Regardingthe implementationof nationalpoliciesandplansfordrinking-waterandsanitation (Q.A1),
many Sub-SaharanAfrican countries reporthavingapprovednational policiesandadopted.Some
countrieshave planandpolicydocumentsinplace thatcan give anorientationinthe sectorof
sanitationanddrinkingwaterandothercountrieshave documentsbuttheyare notaccessible tothe
service providers.Fewcountrieshave standardsthatforce stakeholdersandservice providerstoachieve
gooddrinkingwaterandsanitationfacilitiesandfew countriesreporthavingfinancialproblemswithlow
funding.Additionally,the needtodevelopastand-alone policyisalsoareasonbehindthe lackof
implementation forsome countries.Forthe regionof SouthernAsiaandSouthEast Asia,manycountries
have not commentedthe level of implementationof policiesandplanbutsome countriesstatesthat
policiesandplanneedstobe updatedandthatguidelinesneedtobe more developed.Othercountries
reporta needtoincrease traininganddialogue forbothsectorsandsome countriesreporthavinga
single policyandplanforbothsectors. The few countriesthathas addedadditional information
regardingthe level of implementationof plansandpoliciesforthe regionof LatinAmericaand
Caribbeanstate thatdecreesexistforsanitationanddrinking-waterandthatplanand policiesexistat
municipal level. The same statementscanbe derivedfromthe countriesforthe regionof Caucasusand
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
stakeholders
Yes No No answer

Central Asia.The general commentsthatcanbe deducedfromthe countriesof NorthAfricaand Middle
East is thatplansand policiesexistforsanitationanddrinking-waterorthat a policiesandplansare
underdevelopment.
Most countriesforthe regionof Sub-SaharanAfricathathave an effective complaint(Q.C1) mechanism
reporthavingmedia,municipal,communal orlocal administrationsthroughformal communicationfor
complaint,call centersandmail.Committee meetingsare alsoreportedasa wayof leavingcomplaints.
The same mechanismisreportedforthe regionof SouthernAsiaand SouthEastAsia,LatinAmericaand
Caribbean, Caucasusand Central AsiaandNorthAfricaand Middle East.Additional compliant
mechanismthatisreportedby some countriesare collectionof signature thatissendbylettertothe
local governmentandcomplaintaddressedtobothprivate service providers,suchascompanies,and
publicservice providers,suchaslocal authorities.
Differentotherwaysof reportingresultsof internal monitoringagainstservice standardstothe
regulatoryauthorities andregulate hasbeen stated(Q.C2). The countriesof Sub-SaharanAfricareport
collectingresultsfrominternal monitoring throughnational investigations,reportsfromNGO´s,periodic
revenue thatispreparedbythe village administrationandwebsites.Somecountriesforthe regionof
SouthernAsiaand SouthEast Asia,reportthat problemsrelatedtosanitationand drinkingwaterhasto
be announcedthroughmedia,before local authoritiestake action.Also,reportingandregulationcanbe
done throughreviewmeetingsandbylookingatprojectsthatNGO´sis handingover. Some countries
for the regionof LatinAmericaand Caribbeanreportthatmonitoringandregulationsare done by
companiesresponsible fordrinkingwaterandsanitationbutalsofromservice providersthatgives
informationinaregularbasis.Additionally,urbanoperatorsandnational foodagenciesare example of
service providersthatreporttothe regulatoryauthoritiesthatisstatedbysome countriesforthe region
of Caucasusand Central Asia.The NorthAfricanand Middle Easterncountriesreportthatthe main
concernedministriesandinstitutionsare monitoringannuallythe drinkingwaterandsanitationsector.
Also,regularmeetingwithstakeholdersandreportfromservice providersare otherwaysof reporting
resultstoregulatoryauthorities.
For the countries forthe regionof Sub-SaharanAfricathatdo not have expenditure reportavailable
(Q.B2) stateshavingforinstance sectorial revenues,expenditure reportsatthe ministryincharge with
investmentsplans,reportsatthe national servicesof drinking-waterorreportsfromwaterand
sewerage companies.Some countriesforthe regionof SouthernAsiaand SouthEastAsiareporthaving
expenditure reportsavailable throughindividualprojects, implementingagencies,UN agencyand NGO´s
or throughspecificprojects. LatinAmericanand Caribbeancountriesreporthavingexpenditure reports
throughintegratedsystemsof managementandsystemof watersupplyandsanitation,financial
departmentsandthroughthe secretaryof sanitation.Forthe regionof Caucasusand Central Asia,
countriesreporthavingexpenditure reportsthroughprograms, ministries,regional andlocal
organizations.Additionally,the countriesof the regionof NorthAfricaand Middle Eastreporthaving
expenditure reportsavailable throughthe governmentornational monitoringsystemfornational
budget.Reportscanalso be available throughthe donor’scontributiontothe waterandsanitation
sectorfor some countriesinthe regionf NorthAfricaand Middle East.

4. Discussion
The differentaccountabilitycomponentsthatare evaluatedinthisreportforthe sanitation anddrinking
watersectorshow some differencesinthe resultsdepending onthe sectorand dependingonif the
surveyhasbeendone for rural or urbanareas (Table 4 and 5).
Table 4. Table showing the main results of accountability from the sanitation sector.
Accountability
Component
Sanitation Rural Sanitation Urban Sanitation
Responsibility
- Over 40 % ofthe countries for all regions except
for Latin America andCaribbean have one leading
ministry. Latin America and Caribbeanhave over70
% ofthe countries having more than one leading
ministry.
- More than 50 % ofthe countries for all regions,
except for Latin America and Caribbean as well as
Southern Asia and South East Asia, have between
1-10 donors involved in the sanitation sector.
Furthermore, over 40 % ofthe countries in
Southern Asia and South East Asia report have
more than11 donors involved in sanitation and the
same percentage of countries for Latin America and
Caribbean give no answer.
- Over 40 % ofthe countries except for Latin
America and Caribbeanhavebetween1-10donors
and over 30 % ofthe countries for all regions do
not answer. The percentage ofcountries that do
not respond to the number ofdonors that do not
pass trough national budget, that uses targeted
support and budget support is over 50 % ofthe
countries.
- The level ofimplementation ofpolicies and plans
in sanitation is similar for schools and health
facilities.Over 50% ofthecountries ofNorthAfrica
and MiddleEast have fully implemented policies
and plans.Approximately 30 % ofthe countries of
Latin America and Caribbean have no policies or
policies are under development. The remaining
regions showa moderatelevel ofimplementation
where most countries havepartially implemented
policies or policies approved.
- Approximately 50 % ofthe countries
for the region ofCaucasus and Central
Asia report fully implemented national
policies and plans.
- The region ofLatin America and
Caribbean show the lowest level of
implementation as less than 40 % of
the countries have either fully or
partially implemented national policies
and plans.
- The remaining regions show a good
level ofimplementation where more
than 50 % ofthe countries report
having partially or fully implemented
national policies and plans.
- Good level ofimplementation ofplans and
policies for the region ofNorth Africa and
Middle East butalso for Caucasus and Central
Asia, as all surveyed countries report having
policies and plans either fully or partially
implemented.
- For the remaining regions, the level of
implementation is lower, as 60 % ofthe
countries report having either fully or partially
implementedpolicies and plans or justformally
approved.
Answerability
- Approximately 50 % ofthe countries
for all regions except for the region of
Caucasus and Central Asia have few of
the performance reviews and
customer satisfaction made public.
The region ofCaucasus and Central
Asia have over 60 % ofthe countries
reporting having some or most ofthe
performance reviews made public.
However, the region ofCaucasus and
Central Asia do not show a high
amount ofcustomer satisfaction
reviews madepublic. In contrary, the
availability ofexpenditure reports is
for all regions high, with a percentage
between 80 % and 90 %.
- The amountofperformancereviews that are
made publicis highfor theregion ofCaucasus
and Central Asia and Latin America and
Caribbean, but low for the region ofNorth
Africa and Middle East, Southern Asia and
South East Asia and for Sub-Saharan Africa. The
amount ofcustomer satisfaction reviews that
are made public is low for all regions.
- As for the availability ofthe expenditure
reports, all regions have the majority of
countries reporting that expenditure reports
are available.
- While allregions havea majority ofcountries
reporting having defined policies and law for
participationby serviceusers and communities
in planning programs, theparticipationlevel of

- Regarding theasset ofclearly defined
law and policies inparticipation ofthe
serviceusers inrural sanitation, over
60 % ofthe countries for all regions
report having clearly defined law and
policies.
- The participation levelofserviceuser
in rural sanitation is low for 40 % of
the countries for the region of
Caucasus and Central Asia, Latin
America and Caribbean and North
Africa and Middle East. Over 80 % of
the countries for the region of
Southern Asia and South EastAsia and
Sub-Saharan Africa report a high to
moderate participation levelofservice
users.
the service users in urban sanitation is
moderate for all regions.
Enforceability
- Over 50 % ofthe countries for all regions do not
report internal monitoring from community based
service providers.
- The sameresults aretruefor internal monitoring
reported from informal service users with the
exception ofCaucasus and Central Asia, where
around 30 % ofthe countries donot report internal
monitoring.
- Only the region ofCaucasus and
CentralAsia show that most or some
ofthe populationserved have access
to effectivecomplaintmechanism.The
other regions show in comparison to
Caucasus and Central Asia, that most
countries report having either few of
the population served access to
complaint mechanism or that the
amount ofpopulation served is
unknown.
- Regarding the internal monitoring,
over 40 % ofthe countries for all
regions except for Latin America and
Caribbean state having no internal
monitoring reported.
- The access ofeffective complaintmechanism
is accessible for most ofthepopulation served
for most countries for all regions except for
Southern Asia and South EastAsia as well as for
Sub-Saharan Africa.
- Not many countries reportinternalmonitoring
for the region ofCaucasus and Central Asia,
Southern Asia and South EastAsia as well as for
Sub-Saharan Africa. For the region ofNorth
Africa and MiddleEastas wellas for theregion
ofLatin America andCaribbean, more than 50
% ofthe countries report internal monitoring
which also triggers corrective actions.
Table 5. Table showing the main results of accountability for the drinking-water sector.
Accountability
Component
Drinking-Water Rural Drinking-Water Urban Drinking-Water
Responsibility
- 60 % ofthe countries for SouthernAsia andSouth
East Asia as wellas for Sub-Saharan Africa have on
leading ministry.
- Over 70 % ofthe countries for theregion ofLatin
America and Caribbeanas wellas for Caucasus and
Central Asia have more than one leading
ministry/institution and 10 % ofthe countries in
North Africa and Middle East have no leading
ministry.
- Around 40 % ofthe countries for all regions
except for North Africa and Middle East have
between1-10donors involved in drinking-water.
Over 50 % ofthe countries for North Africa and
Middle East have more than 11 donors.
- Low frequency ofanswers, with over 50 % ofthe
- Around 40 % and more ofthe
countries report for allregion, except
for Latin America and Caribbean and
Sub-Saharan Africa, having fully
implementedpolicies and plans. Sub-
SaharanAfrica as well as North Africa
and MiddleEast havemore than 50 %
ofthe countries reporting partially
implemented policies and plans.
- The region thathas the best level of
implementation ofnational policies
and plans is Caucasus and Central Asia.
- Over 40 % ofthe countries in NorthAfrica and
Middle East and Caucasus and Central Asia
have fully implemented policies and plans.
Around 50 % ofthe countries in North Africa
and MiddleEast and Sub-SaharanAfrica report
having policies and plans partially
implemented.

countries for allregionthatdo notgive an answer
to the number ofdonors thatis allocated through
signed agreement, donors with targeted budget
support and donors with specific objectives.
- Less than 30 % ofthe countries for all regions
have fully implemented nationalpolicies in schools
and healthfacilities.For drinking-waterin schools,
30 % ofthe countries in North Africa and Middle
East have no policies or policies under
development.The same region shows that 55 % of
the countries have fully implemented national
policies in health facilities.
Answerability
- Over 30 % ofthe countries for all
regions have few ofthe population
served performance reviews made
public. Caucasus and Central Asia has
the highest levelofpopulationserved,
with a percentageofover60 %,where
some or most ofthe performance
reviews is made public. The same
results are true for the amount of
customer satisfaction reviews made
public.
- The availability ofexpenditure
reports is for allregions good. Over 80
% ofthe countries have expenditure
reports available for all regions.
- Over 75 % ofthe countries for all
regions report having clearly defined
law and policies for participation by
service users and community in
planning programs.
- The participation level is for all
regions moderate, where
approximately 70 % ofthe countries
have eitherhighor moderate level of
participation.
- Over 70 % ofthe countries for in North Africa
and MiddleEast and Caucasus and Central Asia
have some or most ofperformance reviews
made public. Theother regions have between
50-60% ofthe countries where some or most of
the ofperformance reviews made public.
- Around 50 % ofthecountries in North Africa
and MiddleEast,Southern Asia and South East
Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa have few ofthe
customer satisfaction madepublic. The region
ofCaucasus and Central Asia havearound60 %
ofthe countries where some or most ofthe
customer satisfaction are made public.
- The results concerning the availability of
expenditure reports are similar to the results
from rural area.
- Over 70 % ofthe countries for all regions have
clearlydefined procedurein law and policy for
participationin planning programs. The region
ofCaucasus and Central Asia has 80 % ofthe
countries where theparticipationis moderate.
The regions ofSouthern Asia and South East
Asia as well as Sub-Saharan Africa have less
than 25 % ofthe countries where the
participation is low.
Enforceability
- Over 40 % ofthe countries for Sub-Saharan Africa,
North Africa and Middle East and Southern Asia
and South East Asia do not report internal
monitoring from both informal and community
based service providers.
- For the region ofLatin America and Caribbean and
Caucasus and Central Asia, between30- 50% ofthe
countries report internal monitoring and only
around 15%do not trigger corrective action from
both informal and community based service
providers.
- High amount ofpopulation served
that has access to complaint
mechanism for North Africa and
Middle East as well as for Caucasus
and Central Asia. For the region of
Latin America andCaribbean together
with Sub-SaharanAfrica, around 30 %
ofthe countries donot give an answer
to the question.
- Less than30% ofthe countries for all
regions report internal monitoring
which also triggers corrective action.
- Around 50 % ofthe countries for all regions
report that mostofthepopulation servedhave
access to complaint mechanism.
- Over 50 % ofthe countries for all regions
except for Southern Asia and South East Asia
report internal monitoring which also triggers
corrective actions.

Accountability report_final draft

Accountability report_final draft

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Accountability report_final draft

Similar to Accountability report_final draft (20)

Accountability report_final draft